A Change in the Atlantic War

What if Hitler decided that he would not release any naval assets against the Allies until after the fall of France in June of 1940?

So while Germany had all the same assets they went unused. No Uboats, no Raiders, no Magnetic Mines, nothing.

This would also assume that there was no attack against Denmark and Norway (since no Altmark incident) at least that Germany would initiate. If the UK invaded one of those nations how would that change the world view of the war?

What would the politics of this move have done to the UK and world opinion of Germany?
 
Why would Germany do this? They have a navy for a reason, no raiders means the RN can focus on Europe, no U-boats mean no need for convoys. If Hitler isn't planning on using his navy for a while, he should spend the money and resources on his army and airforce.
 
What if Hitler decided that he would not release any naval assets against the Allies until after the fall of France in June of 1940?

So while Germany had all the same assets they went unused. No Uboats, no Raiders, no Magnetic Mines, nothing.

This would also assume that there was no attack against Denmark and Norway (since no Altmark incident) at least that Germany would initiate. If the UK invaded one of those nations how would that change the world view of the war?

What would the politics of this move have done to the UK and world opinion of Germany?

Not planning to try and blockade the UK = planning to not win WW2

Norway to the Germans and the British = iron ore via Narvik

The clash that triggered the subsequent events of the Norwegian campaign happened when HMS Cossack intercepted the Altmark in Norwegian waters

The Altmark was carrying British and Allied POWs taken by the Graf Spree and had taken refuge in Neutral Norwegian waters.

Despite the British asking the Norwegian Government to inspect the ship - the Norwegians only stopped it twice and asked if their were any POWs on board to which the captain said there was not.

While the transport of POWs through Neutral water is allowed - it should only be done where this no other option (ie Panama canal) and with the permission of the Neutral nation.

The British lost patience and stormed the vessel in a Norwegian Fjord resulting in the deaths of several German crew who resisted.

This Norwegian government somewhat embarrassed and stuck in the middle of 2 powerful nations allowed Cossack to leave with the POWs and then a day later allowed the Altmark to leave and return to Germany

Hitler believed that the Norwegians had taken the side of the British and subsequently invaded to secure the supply of Iron ore.

Without this incident which without raiders operating around the world would not have occurred we might not see the invasion happen like it did or when it did.

As for the British we might eventually see them try to do something about the winter supply of Iron ore - but this could include outbuying the Germans and securing it for themselves (simply in order to keep it from the Germans) rather than an outright hostile act.

Poor poor Norway.
 

nbcman

Donor
What if Hitler decided that he would not release any naval assets against the Allies until after the fall of France in June of 1940?

So while Germany had all the same assets they went unused. No Uboats, no Raiders, no Magnetic Mines, nothing.

This would also assume that there was no attack against Denmark and Norway (since no Altmark incident) at least that Germany would initiate. If the UK invaded one of those nations how would that change the world view of the war?

What would the politics of this move have done to the UK and world opinion of Germany?
The UK & France were planning to invade Norway ONLY if the Germans invaded or appeared to be planning an invasion in response to the mining of Norwegian waters. And the mining of Norwegian waters was done in response to reports that the Germans were assembling shipping and troops in northern German ports in an apparent plan to invade. See Plan R 4 and Operation Wilfred. So no Weserubung means no losses to the German forces plus no losses for the UK, France and Norway/Denmark. Plus no German buildup for Weserubung means no mining.
 
Not planning to try and blockade the UK = planning to not win WW2.

Hitler wanted Poland. He did not want a war with the UK. He wanted to deal with France eventually but not take it over. My point is WHAT IF he did not do anything overtly hostile towards the UK? What if they went through the phony war up until May of 40. I don't think ether side was bombing the other the first 6 months of the war. The citizens of the UK probably thought this was a joke (to a certain extent).

What if (until May) Germany just didn't engage with the UK and France. In the meantime Goebbels could be sending out propaganda that Germany didn't want this war, and the UK and France shouldn't be interfering in East European politics, ect, ect...

Then in May the attack against France (They need to go through Belgium but I would leave the Netherlands alone this time) goes exactly as real life. By June 10 France capitulates and Britain is on their own.

To this point (other then the ground and air casualties in France) Germany has not been hostile towards the UK. SO no sub war or anything.

What is the reaction of the general public in Britain? Do they want to continue the war? Why? What's in it for them?

I think war can take on a very different look at that point. It will be MUCH harder to drag in the US.

After trying to reach an agreement with the UK Hitler can then start the u-boat campaign. But the propaganda piece is that they tried like hell not to have this war and the UK wouldn't listen to reason.

I just think this is an interesting thought.
 
Top